Senators turn their heads in Kavanaugh nomination

To paraphrase Queen Gertrude from “Hamlet,” “The senator doth protest too much, methinks.” William Shakespeare was making the observation that exaggerated bellyaching is not to be believed.

After reviewing the FBI’s report on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s supplemental background check, Sen. Chuck Grassley was angrily shouting and gesturing in his condemnation of his Democratic colleagues for criticizing the process of the judiciary committee and thus, his actions as its chairman. In a fit of rage, he implied that the report exonerated the judge.

Making this characterization of a confidential report was, in itself, a violation of Senate rules and a conclusion emphatically disputed by Democratic committee members.

He also suggested that the investigation was comprehensive and that it was time to move ahead with the vote to confirm. The scope of the investigation was, in fact, severely limited, presumably by the White House.

President Donald Trump claimed to have given the FBI free rein to interrogate anyone they chose. Could he possibly be lying? Lacking authorization to interview more than a few specified individuals, the FBI was forced to turn away numerous other witnesses who were clamoring to be heard.

Grassley offered no explanation as to why he is in such a hurry to force Kavanaugh’s nomination through. Republicans sat on their hands for a year when Merrick Garland was nominated, refusing to address the vacant seat on the Supreme Court until after Russia boosted Trump into the presidency.

Now, they have the gall to complain about Democratic efforts to delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation for a few weeks while serious accusations are adequately investigated.

By condemning Democratic procedural delays, which could extend beyond the midterm elections, they are inadvertently acknowledging their own incentive for plowing through with this confirmation. Delay worked for them when Garland was denied his seat at the bench. They were loath to give Democrats the same opportunity with Kavanaugh.

In my opinion, the midterm elections are a distraction. Republicans are in a hurry to confirm Kavanaugh primarily because any delay in the proceedings could allow for corroboration of existing accusations and potentially welcome more damaging information to come to the surface. They did not want to wait for the next shoe to drop or in the late Sen. John McCain’s words “There are more shoes to drop from this centipede.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham’s pompous indignation and threatening demeanor also were on display at the hearing, rivaling the lack of control and comity demonstrated not only by Chairman Grassley, but by Kavanaugh himself, the “guest of honor.” Bombastic rhetoric covering for guilt is more than evident in the performances of these Republican operatives. Any doubts that Kavanaugh lacked the necessary impartial judicial temperament for the Supreme Court were laid to rest with his apoplectic response to plausible accusations.

More than 2,400 law professors signed on to a letter stating that Kavanaugh is unfit for the bench. Following Kavanaugh’s volcanic partisan rant before the judicial committee, former Justice John Paul Stevens changed his opinion and made a historic public statement against Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Numerous editorial boards across the country also have opined against the nominee.

Fifty senators were willing to confirm Kavanaugh to the highest court in the land. They were dismissive of compelling accusations of sexual assault, “uncorroborated” for the time being, sarcastic about serious allegations of alcohol abuse, seemingly oblivious to the nominee’s repeated lying under oath and accepting of the farcical characterization of Kavanaugh as a choir boy. They need to be replaced.

Warren,
I will leave the moderating of my comments up to the VC News editor. If he believes my comments are inappropriate or cross the line of impropriety, I have faith he will delete them.This comment has been hidden due to low approval.

Denny,
I just became aware of your remarks an hour ago. Please enlighten me about my comments being ignorant.
It seems you are oblivious to the realty of presumed innocence. There have been plenty of falsely charged persons being found innocent at a later date. And I am quite aware that some offenders are not ever found guilty because evidence is lacking.
Please moderate the tone of your comments.
Warren AndersonThis comment has been hidden due to low approval.

Denny,
You really must not grasp the incredible irony in the opening of your post below directed at Warren, “Speaking of ignorant comments…” because if you did, you would not have said any of the following to Warren:
* You stated, “How many rapes and sexual assaults do you believe actually have witnesses? Let me help you -- very few.”
Yet, such line of thinking is irrelevant to this case since Ford produced a list of 4 witnesses she said had intimate knowledge of the events surrounding that evening.
* You stated, “You have absolutely no way of proving that her claims are false.”
Yet again, such reasoning is irrelevant to our justice system, since in this country one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Meaning, the burden of proof was on Ford to prove her claims true by way of substantiated evidence, not the accused to prove unsubstantiated claims false.
Now to the part in which you defeat your own argument by way of an utterly faulty example of personal experience:
* You stated, “Take it out of the realm of sexual abuse .... I was married 30+ years ago....fact - not debatable. I know we served a full, sit down dinner - no clue what was on the menu. We had a band, but no clue what our first dance was. We arrived in a limo to the reception and I have no idea how we got from the reception to the hotel, and yet, I will swear that we spent the night at a hotel in Los Angeles. Inconsistencies? You bet. Faulty memory? Indeed. Did the wedding happen? Also irrefutable."
Irrefutable? Not so fast.
If you are going to make a parallel argument, you must employ similar circumstances. So I will take the liberty of rewriting your personal story, but with relevant context, not only to prove your parallel reasoning fallacious, but that it actually damages your cause considering how you attempted to turn the tables on decent people in your reckless statement, “You and individuals like you are the precise reason that the majority of women do not report sexual abuse, assault, harassment and rape.”
Take it out of the realm of sexual abuse .... I was married 30+ years ago....fact - not debatable. I know we served a full, sit down dinner - no clue what was on the menu. We had a band, but no clue what our first dance was. We arrived in a limo to the reception and I have no idea how we got from the reception to the hotel, and yet, I will swear that we spent the night at a hotel in Los Angeles. Inconsistencies? You bet. Faulty memory? Indeed. Did the wedding happen? Also irrefutable. But just recently I filed an insurance claim based on my marriage decades ago. And since the state I was married in had no record of a marriage license, and I could not remember the year in which I was married, where the marriage vows took place, the reception venue or wedding night hotel, the insurance company asked for witnesses to the ceremony. Of the four witnesses I provided, none of them had any recollection of being at my wedding or reception. Even my lifelong friend who I said was there contradicted me, by stating under penalty of felony, that she not only has no memory of this wedding, but she does not even know the man I insist I married. So when the insurance company denied my insurance claim I told them that they had no way to prove my assertions false. The woman on the phone shot back, “That’s not our responsibilty since the burden of proof is on you to prove you were married in the first place.” (click)
Frank Gabl
This comment has been hidden due to low approval.

Such ignorant comments ... .... how many rapes and sexual assaults do you believe actually have witnesses? Let me help you -- very few. Only a diehard trumper could describe this as "your party" losing. You and individuals like you are the precise reason that the majority of women do not report sexual abuse, assault, harassment and rape.
"his...professional career hangs in the balance"?? How about her entire life? You have absolutely no way of proving that her claims are false. And of course there are inconsistencies in her story. Experts will tell you that in situations of high emotion, great significance, it is likely that an individual will remember parts of those events. Take it out of the realm of sexual abuse .... I was married 30+ years ago....fact - not debatable. I know we served a full, sit down dinner - no clue what was on the menu. We had a band, but no clue what our first dance was. We arrived in a limo to the reception and I have no idea how we got from the reception to the hotel, and yet, I will swear that we spent the night at a hotel in Los Angeles. Inconsistencies? You bet. Faulty memory? Indeed. Did the wedding happen? Also irrefutable.This comment has been hidden due to low approval.

Terrance,
This is hilarious. The party of Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Keith Ellison now is in favor of believing the accuser. Let me remind you, a person is innocent until proven guilty. If the Democrats really wanted to know the truth on Judge Kavanaugh, Diane Feinstein should have brought all information she had on him to her committee as soon as she received it.
No one has corroborated the accuser's charges. There are inconsistencies in her testimony. Think about it. Imagine that you have a family member or friend with the highest moral and personal qualities, and that person is falsely accused of a major offense. His or her professional career hangs in the balance, and others are trying to dig up more dirt to destroy this person. This is wrong.
Merrick Garland's nomination was held up because the Republicans used the Biden/Schumer rule of years past. Those Democrats affirmed that they would not approve a George W. Bush candidate to the Supreme Court in the year of an election.
Kavanaugh's response to the Democrats' Search and Destroy mission was rational to say the least. Sen. Booker called him "evil." Face it. Your party lost this one, and they are becoming more radical with each passing day.
Warren AndersonThis comment has been hidden due to low approval.

We welcome your comments at vcnewsreview.com. Comments will be limited to 5,000 characters. Persons commenting must provide their full name and email address. Anonymous comments will not be posted. Comments should remain on the topic set by the original article. Personal attacks, profanity, slander, libelous statements and texting language will not be allowed. All comments will be reviewed prior to posting. Comments will only be posted during regular business hours. Phone numbers are optional and will not be publicized.

Comment

Message is a required field.

Your Name

Email

Phone

Captcha entry is not valid, please try again.

A comment must be approved by our staff before it will be displayed on the website.